legal question regarding leasing agreements/tenants

[Quick_lude]

We've all heard stories about tenants refusing to pay but not vacating the apartment, etc.
My question is, is there any legal difference/advantage for me, the landlord in the first scenario vs the second one?

1. sign a 6 month lease. At the end of the lease, tenant refuses to sign for another term but stays in the apt without paying.

2. sign a 12 month lease. Midway through the lease tenant refuses to pay but stays in the apt anyway forcing me to start eviction process.

So would I as a landlord have more legal powers in the first scenario since the lease term is up and the tenants are still in the apt without an official contract? Or would that not matter and I still have to go through the courts to evict and try to get my money back, etc.?

[stealth]

dunno, but have you read this?
http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/en/STEL02_111286.html

[beth24]

We've all heard stories about tenants refusing to pay but not vacating the apartment, etc.
My question is, is there any legal difference/advantage for me, the landlord in the first scenario vs the second one?

1. sign a 6 month lease. At the end of the lease, tenant refuses to sign for another term but stays in the apt without paying.

2. sign a 12 month lease. Midway through the lease tenant refuses to pay but stays in the apt anyway forcing me to start eviction process.

So would I as a landlord have more legal powers in the first scenario since the lease term is up and the tenants are still in the apt without an official contract? Or would that not matter and I still have to go through the courts to evict and try to get my money back, etc.?

The only advantage to the second scenario is that you would be able to hold them finacially responsible for the remaining financial terms of the lease. You would have to go through collections or sue in small claims ( assuming that the dollar value is less than $10K) In order to remove any tenant in Ontario the eviction process is the sameregardless if the lease is expired or not. After the term of a lease expires the tenant is not obligated under the Landlord Tenant Act to sign a new lease but will be considered on a month to month lease which means they only have to supply you with a written notice of 60 days. In order for you, as the landlord, have a tenant removed after the lease term ends the process is the same, just a different form. The cost and time involved does not change. Sorry. I am in the industry and in my opinion the revisions to the Landlord Tenant Act, while in some cases were necessary to control " slum lords", have made it very difficult and costly to remove bad tenants.

[Quick_lude]

Thank you for a great answer. :) Yeah, these laws do seem to be stacked against the landlord. :|

[astroboi]

Thank you for a great answer. :) Yeah, these laws do seem to be stacked against the landlord. :|

Yeah, that's why you really have to do your homework when evaluating a potential tenant. It pays to be picky.

[CSK'sMom]

And I'll add if you can't financially carry the property out of your own pocket for 6-9 months then you shouldn't be even thinking about buying a rental property. We were given this advice by a very good friend that is owns over 60 rental properties.

[buyways]

The only advantage to the second scenario is that you would be able to hold them finacially responsible for the remaining financial terms of the lease. .

Not even that - in most if not all provinces, if the tenant breaks the lease (or leaves with less than 60days notice ((in Ontario; notice requirements vary by province)) under a month-to-month lease) the landlord has a duty to mitigate their damages, i.e. to take reasonable steps to find someone else to rent the apartment. The landlord cannot let the place sit empty for the remainder of the lease and expect to get a court order for payment from the tenant equivalent to the rent that would have been paid had the tenant fulfilled the lease. Practically, that probably means a month or two of rent, depending on the local rental market and the availability of new tenants. The landlord can only sue for the cost of advertising the place etc., i.e. the costs of replacing the tenant, and for the rent payable for the time it stays (reasonably) unrented.

check your provincial "residential tenancies act" or "landlord tenant act" & landlord tenant board website